Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Jahi McMath—How do we handle someone whose death is contested?

Jahi McMath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background: Jahi McMath underwent a surgical procedure in late 2013, suffered complications which included a bleed and a period of cardiac arrest, during which her brain was not oxygenated. Subsequently, she was declared brain-dead by the hospital's doctors. Her family disagreed and fought the determination in court, which may have failed (the article seems to indicate that the trial court found against the family). McMath has been declared legally dead, but her body is still on life support.

Issue: There's an ongoing dispute over whether to describe McMath as living or deceased, and perhaps more seriously, whether McMath should be described in the past or present tense. That is, "Jahi McMath is ..." versus "Jahi McMath was ..." WP:BLP applies: if McMath is dead, she's recently deceased and still within the scope of WP:BLP. While my normal recommendation would be to discuss the dispute, there are two problems. First, how do we handle the tense issue? I don't think "creative wording" will work satisfactorily. Second, I'm not sure there are sources yet on this specific case that adequately discuss the dispute over whether McMath should be described as living or dead. There might be more general sources, but I'm not sure those could be invoked without running afoul of WP:SYN.

One solution suggested is "is/was", which I don't particularly like. An explanatory footnote probably wouldn't resolve the dispute either. My personal opinion is that we're well within WP:NOTNEWS territory, indicating that deletion might be appropriate, but that still doesn't really resolve the dispute. Opinions are welcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting example of how to handle something like this is the article on Lord Lucan. The opening paragraph nicely side-steps the alive or dead issue completely by the way it is worded and then explores the issue in more detail later. So perhaps in this case careful phrasing may do the job too? Shritwod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this approach could work here if the opening paragraph was changed to read something like: "Jahi McMath (May 26, 2000 – December 12, 2013) was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." This change would sidestep the issue although I don't know if this change conforms to style guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a FA that manages to avoid a similar problem. Well, color me impressed. Maybe clever wording can be used to avoid the issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of points of clarification. The court ruled that McMath's body could remain on a ventilator until January 7. McMath's family removed the body from the hospital on January 5, before a previously scheduled trial could take place, so no further rulings were made on whether removing mechanical ventilation violated the family's freedom of religion and privacy, as their lawyer claimed. (Citations on these points are in the article.) As to whether McMath's body is still on a ventilator, no reliable, independent sources have documented the body's condition nor whereabouts since January 5. Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Jahi is not dead would seem to be a fringe theory. That does not mean I would not treat the article with extraordinary sensitivity - but BLP does not require us to ignore an avalanche of medical and legal evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the Lord Lucan style being used but the editor who continues to undo/edit-war and revert has shown that they do not approve. How about saying, "(born... declared death...) in this case adding the modifier "declared" "Legally declared", or even "brain-death" or any other modifier to signify the circumstances?24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth or mischaracterize my actions. I would disagree that this case is similar to Lord Lucan and agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that the position that McMath was alive after December 12 is a fringe theory. However, in the interest of compromise I would support removing both the birth and death dates from the article and infobox and phrase the lede as suggested by Ca2james above, minus the dates: "Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Maybe making sure that her age at the time she entered the hospital or some other reference to her age is in the article somewhere. It is not a perfect solution, but it would help make the article more neutral. And sorry Funcrunch-didn't want to speak for you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely do not believe we should remove the birth/death dates. Noting that she was declared brain-dead is fine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the only way you're going to get a compromise, and doing so harms nothing. Just mention the DOB and date when declared brain-dead later in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, then this is not an acceptable "compromise" and doing so is an unacceptable concession to a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's your position, NorthBySouthBaranof, I propose you are the one being unreasonable. Rephrasing the lead so as to not give credit to either side is not giving an endorsement to a fringe theory, and attempting to paint it as some huge concession is patently hogwash. I further propose that a consensus is emerging here that the article be reworked to reflect that consensus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "giving credit." NPOV does not require some fantastical notion of "equal time" or "balance" - it requires that we balance competing viewpoints in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. Far and away, the reliable sources in this case describe McMath as dead. Therefore, that is the viewpoint which must predominate within the article. Her family's claims to the contrary are notable, but they are not controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about removing the birth and death dates from the text of the article, or from the info box at the top, or both? As long as the dates remain in the article somewhere - as in the info box - I support this compromise.Ca2james (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that the article has been renamed to clarify that it is not a biography, it makes sense to me to remove the infobox. The article as it currently stands states the girl's age and date of death, and her nationality and parents' names aren't really relevant. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the retention of the infobox, as per the precedent of Terri Schiavo case, after which this article has been renamed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also support the retention of the infobox as per the precedent of the Terri Schiavo case. It doesn't make sense to me for these two very similar articles to have different infoboxes. I also think that the information in the infobox is relevant as it provides context for the case. Ca2james (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As illustrated by today's edits, we still don't have a resolution on this issue. My suggestion to remove the infobox was not just because of the birth and death dates, but because the family members' names really aren't as relevant in this case. In the Terri Schiavo case, the parents and spouse became more notable themselves owing to how long the situation dragged out, their internal clashes and the forming of a foundation after Terri's death, etc. I would argue again that McMath's nationality and city of residence aren't relevant to this article either; it's sufficient to say that she was treated at Children's Hospital in Oakland. Funcrunch (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The birth and death dates are definitely relevant. The mother's name is relevant because she's the one who has brought the legal cases forwards. The father and stepfather's names are irrelevant and I think they can be removed. The country, at least, is totally relevant because I don't think this situation could occur anywhere else in the world, and I think it - or the city - belongs in the infobox. Ca2james (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to find a resolution that will satisfy this anon, then, as instead of edit warring over verb tense we now have edit warring over listing the death date in the infobox. 24.0.133.234 (talk) appears to be the only editor posting either here or at the article talk page who does not agree that Jahi McMath died on December 12. How do we reach consensus under these circumstances? Funcrunch (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that the infobox can be deleted (see below) so I think we've got consensus there. I don't know how to reach a consensus on the rest of the article with respect to the date of death when a single editor does not agree. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

IP editor is continuing to post long treatises on brain death and medical ethics to the talk page, and has shown unwillingness to compromise in order to reach consensus with the other editors regarding the handling of this article. I have no solution. Funcrunch (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the IP editor is engaging in WP:DISRUPT? If so, is time to seek resolution via one or another of the steps in WP:DDE? Ca2james (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but as IP has accused me personally of edit warring and ownership issues, and my attempt to seek outside assistance to resolve the dispute here has apparently failed, I'd rather someone else seek resolution at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we handle someone whose death is contested? Well, there's always the BLPN Hit Squad. As a last resort, of course. Other methods of disambiguation are always preferable. We here at Wikipedia are already quite accustomed to character assassination, so this will be but a small step. I mean this literally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the immediately preceding (stricken) comment in a humorous way, before looking at the article, which I've now looked at and edited slightly. It really is a tragic case, and my sympathies go out to all concerned. The state says she's dead and her parents say she isn't. Wikipedia need not and should not take sides. This may make editing more difficult, but it can be done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is even a scintilla of dispute, WP:BLP absolutely applies -- and is considered to apply to "recently dead" people by practice in any event. The goal is "do no harm" and if harm would be seen by anyone involved, we ought not do it. Collect (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With this in mind, I can see that it is better to remove the death date from the infobox for now (there will come a time when the family comes to the realization that the body they are maintaining is, in fact, dead, and the article will likely change at that time). Without the death date information and with the addition of the state in the lead, I concede that the rest of the info in the infobox is irrelevant and support its removal. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv - Your assistance thus far in resolving this dispute have been appreciated. Unfortunately, despite the "is/was" and infobox issues being addressed, IP editor 24.0.133.234 remains unsatisfied with the content of the (now renamed) Jahi McMath case article, and is continuing to engage in editing and talk page behavior that Ca2james and myself consider to be disruptive. We could use more guidance as to how to proceed and/or escalate. Funcrunch (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed that we need help. I have been continuing to edit? is that an example of disruptive behavior? If so please just BLOCK ME so that the censorship issue is clear.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect to conflict resolution, it would be helpful if repeated conduct by NorthBySouthBaranof on the Jahi McMath page, which appears to be in violation of the 3RR, could also be looked into --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Would be interesting if repeatedly-disruptive conduct by anonymous IPs inserting non-scientific nonsense was examined as well. A number of concessions have been made - removing the birth and death dates, nixing the infobox, etc. - but there seems to be no end to the demands that this article's content be dominated and directed by the fringe POV that a brain-dead person is not dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think referring to this editor's content as "non-scientific nonsense" shows bias. From comments in talk page, it seems clear that 24.0.133.234 takes the side of the McMath family while NorthBySouthBaranof takes side of the hospital. This is going to cause editing conflicts. Unfortunately, I've seen both editors add unreferenced content to support their viewpoint, but NorthBySouthBaranof's edits in this regard seem more disruptive due to violation of 3RR.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as the article is concerned, I am trying to take the side of WP. The biased and "sided" edits that appear in the article just stick-out more clearly to myself I guess because as i have admitted, I do not personally believe that the child is deceased. I have never disputed legal death and brain death as being a fact in the case. I also admit that I have made mistakes of every kind while editing the article but I have been operating with good faith in trying to improve the article with the ultimate goal of making it an unbiased WP article on the topic of the Jahi McMath case.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cara Delevingne

Hi, I could use some help with this please. Even the more reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and The Telegraph are quoting another party (other than the subject) in the Daily Mirror tabloid which is not a reliable source. HelenOnline 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also here in Michelle Rodriguez. HelenOnline 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary of this revert of my WP:BLPREMOVE by Tbhotch states "It's not that difficult to use Google News. The Mirror may not be reliable, but Rodriguez and Delevingne are". The Mirror article which supposedly quotes Rodriguez and another unnamed source is not an official press release or statement and it was definitely not quoting Delevingne. HelenOnline 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd approach the statement with caution at this stage. I note that the Independent, for example, caveats the story by saying here that "Earlier this week, Rodriguez also apparently confirmed the romance, though many initially approached her statement with caution, as it was printed in The Mirror from what appeared to be an undisclosed interview." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the Independent article which is probably the most reliable source so far. However, the comment "I love her, she's great" is not exactly conclusive proof. The Independent commenters pretty much echo my own impressions of the whole story (not relevant here I know, but at least I know I am not alone), i.e. speculative gossip, possible PR stunt. Wikipedia is not the place for gossip, campaigning or commercial promotion and we should be better than the media at filtering such information. HelenOnline 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW the secondhand comment quoted in the Independent (from the Digital Spy website) was pretty selective. The full quote is "I don't know what you're talking about. I love her, she's great." (emphasis mine). HelenOnline 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: TMZ has updated their article noting that Rodriguez's rep told them that Rodriguez never spoke to The Mirror, and Delevingne was quoted in The Mirror today saying "I love her, she’s great. She’s a very good friend of mine – she’s wonderful." HelenOnline 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This content is still being added regularly to both articles either without sources or with unreliable sources (latest: [1] [2]), and none of the editors concerned (including not new registered ones) are interested in discussing it here as requested. Both articles are now pending changes protected. I'm not sure what else I can do, but I would like this to stay here a bit longer, ideally until either the fuss blows over (probably when the tabloid media publishes a more interesting story) or we have reliable sources (not holding my breath). HelenOnline 06:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion moved here from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez

Moved from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez § Girlfriend.3F

Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources confirming the relationship that do not rely on secondhand information from unreliable sources such as The Mirror (who Rodriguez's rep says Rodriguez never spoke to). Please rather discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cara Delevingne. HelenOnline 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply HelenOnline. Now the Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Mirror, Independent and Irish Independent are reporting on her relationship. Is that enough sources yet? Tomh903 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of quantity, it's a question of quality. If they are tabloids or quoting secondhand information from an unreliable source such as The Mirror, they are of no use. Once again, I must ask you to please discuss it at WP:BLPN which specialises in such issues (and because it affects more than one BLP article). HelenOnline 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy

I am new to Wikipedia and hope that those with better knowledge than I about the intricate workings of editing play fair with me. Looking at the history of this entry I am concerned that all references to Stuart Murphy's homosexuality are removed very rapidly without reason. Murphy has gone on the record regarding his sexuality. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/24/stuart-murphy-sky-battle-box and elsewhere. What precisely merits the censorship of this well known aspect of his life anymore than removing all references to Stephen Fry's homosexuality in his Wikipedia entry? Its removal is offensive to the gay community. Or have I misunderstood? I am happy to stand corrected if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.135.151 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've misunderstood.

If you're new to Wikipedia, why are you repeating the exact self-same comparison (of Murphy to Fry) that another editor posted on my talk page more than a year ago? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that he (or she), like me, simply looked at the history of the SM talk page and followed the link to your historical (and to some degree hysterical) "discussions"? Why are perfectly polite newbies on Wikipedia treated in such a hostile and suspicious fashion? He or she makes a very good albeit repeated point about Fry and I don't see you, Demiurge, adopting a helpful attitude here. Saying "Yes you have misunderstood" without explaining why isn't fair is it? So please explain why a man who is openly gay (and has said so on the record in the Guardian and to camera at the Edinburgh TV Festival) should have this issue removed from Wikipedia over and over again by you? Look at the history everyone. It makes for fascinating and revealing reading ! In the meantime if references to the guy's sexuality is removed again, I'll go onto the Fry page and remove those too. 50.60.134.27 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you? 50.60.134.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making threats above can be assumed to be the same person as the other 50.60.xx, although implying otherwise. I've blocked the range for a few weeks. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

WOW! I hear the sounds of grinding axes. This is generating a lot of heat but little light and blocking people for making a joke, which is how the Fry comment read to me, is a bit severe isn't it? It probably is the same guy but he makes good points. I see no light coming from Demiurge1000 just the rapid knee jerk revert revert. The ref to Murphy's homosexuality is going back on the page. Can we have a cool, calm, level-headed senior editor with no connection to this Murphy page to oversee it? What IS the big deal here? All it says is that the guy is gay which he has said many times? 181.41.209.19 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

His sexual orientation is of no relevance to the article. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Stuart Murphy article has been placed in several gay and LGBT categories so it's not likely his sexual orientation is completely erased. You raise a good question though since, when it is an entertainer or sports figure declaring they are LGBT, mention of it is usually included in their article but it is considered irrelevant for individuals who aren't so obviously on a public stage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. Stuart Murphy is hardly unknown. Yet, seldom a day passes without there being a press release from him (in his role as one of the major commissioners for British and U.S TV). He is very well known not only by many who work in TV (and who doubtless consider him to be a role model as the youngest ever controller in BBC TV etc.), but by regular readers of newspapers' media pages etc. Tiptoety's edit entry (though not on this page I note) says “his children are not notable, and noting that he has them adds nothing to the article. Do not re-add this material. Continually re-adding will result in a block”. This unpleasantness is unsupported by the accusation of a violation per WP:BLP. How does directly quoting Murphy regarding his familial circumstances and his sexuality (from reliable sources)constitute such a violation? The identities of the children are not revealed in the entry. And his sexual circumstances are noteworthy not least because of his senior position in TV and editorial powers. He could certainly be an inspiration to many men and women facing a similar predicament. So I say its inclusion does add to the article and I am going to revert. If I am blocked by Tiptoety as that editor threatens, I would welcome the wider involvement of the Wikipedia community to look into this. I see a pincer movement and blocking threats going on too frequently between Tiptoety and Demiurge1000 (see above). Look at the history of the Murphy entry (as suggested above). If I am blocked, I will bring this to the attention of the founder of the esteemed organization. 181.41.209.86 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, by that train of thought, if I was to openly say that I am, for example a straight man, that would warrant being included in an article about me? What if I didn't want it included? What if I didn't want an entry about me on one of the top 5 websites to make mention of my children? Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

By default on Wikipedia everyone is presumed to be straight, and we regularly report on straight people's girlfriends, and boyfriends. It's only when the people are LGBT that every nuance has to be sourced, often multiple times, for the content to survive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone with considerable power in the media (such as Murphy) decides to single out details of their sexual preferences in a high profile newspaper interview (straight or otherwise), then such comments must be regarded as significant. Most heterosexual men don't go out of their way to divulge whether they are straight or not, but those who do (usually by mentioning their conquests) clearly do so for a reason and it seems perverse that some Wikiepedia editors want to expunge such freely given and significant personal information. Murphy's sexuality has clearly had an impact on his editorial thinking. Before he came out, he commissioned the first very out newsreader for BBC3 tv (and made a PR feature of it). I guess that many of his Sky comedies like "Trollied" (almost a present day "Are you Being Served") attract a gay audience. That is why I find the expunging mention of this man's homosexuality sinister because I don't trust the motives. Is Murphy himself regretting he mentioned it now he climbs higher up the ladder? Just as sinister is the bullying tone of the editors wanting to applying the censorship in this entry. Aggression is becoming epidemic in Wikipedia. Read the terse and cavalier remarks above this entry from editors presumably with a high number of wiki barn stars but with obviously very low self esteem. Such a barbed tonality will eventually damage Wikipedia's reputation. Bullying (phrases like "you are going to get blocked" without giving reason) isn't permitted in the school playground, so why is it tolerated in the grown up world of Wikipedia? More severe action should be taken against such people. I am going to send this little interchange to Jimmy Wales. 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article wrote me a very angry note about the article about her and I've decided to try to help improve it. I have made some edits already but could use some help.

The article is unrelentingly negative in tone, but that is in no small part because virtually all third party writing about her is hostile due to her controversial (to say the least) positions and her own angry style of writing. But on top of that, in looking into our summaries of several of her positions or past controversies, I'm find the article to be sometimes weak in terms of good quality summary of what was actually said or what actually happened.

There also appears to be far too much reliance on blogs for sourcing.

Anyway, help would be appreciated and there's some stuff I have written on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Myself and another editor showed up to help Jimbo with this. More are always welcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel as though the article is fine the way it is now, the majority of it was listing the controversial things she said, which is important to include. I don't see a problem with it! Adamh4 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The main controversy now is about the stuff regarding Poland (toward the end of the BLP).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Now it's been nominated for deletion.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Willie Manning

Willie Jerome Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments. Smallnslow (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This matter involves a person on death row for murder. For reasons that I'm unsure of, the discussion has been at user talk, instead of at article talk. See User talk:Smallnslow. The other editor involved in this controversy is User:Bundleofsticks. I will place a link to this discussion at article talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Anythingyouwant. I gave user Smallnslow constructive advice about WP policies (NPOV and RS) and offered to help him/her edit the article and s/he ignored that advice and blasted on. All Smallnslow has done is remove sourced RS material from the article, in order to push a POV. Smallnslow's edits were so severe that they triggered two separate bots to undo the changes. The subject of the article has been convicted of two double murders. That is simply a fact. It is a fact that has been stated in most of the leading newspapers of the United States. I do not see that I have violated WP:BLP. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the basic disagreement here about whether we should call a convicted murderer a "murderer" before he has exhausted all appeals?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what is going on at the article but I have had a look at that talk page, User talk:Smallnslow. The statement "the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia" is not what I would necessarily call constructive advice given that other Wikipedia leads aren't relevant. Smallnslow's suggestion to change 'convicted murderer' to 'convicted of murder' seems to be a simple and effective solution that is consistent with policy. It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If that were all there were to it, I would not have reverted. But Smallnslow cut 4735 bytes, almost half the article, including basically all of the evidence from two murder trials that was rehashed on numerous appeals. User Smallnslow is apparently trying to push the POV that Manning is innocent and trying to delete anything from the article that interferes with that POV, like eyewitnesses, ballistics tests, having the victims' property. I mentioned those other articles because Smallnslow argued that saying someone is a convicted murderer is POV; I pointed out that is not POV but is rather a common practice on WP. Anyway, it's just a fact. He was convicted of four murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Baby steps. They seem to be a new single-purpose-so-far account and the learning curve is steep. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above <He was convicted of four murders>. I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910. Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published. Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources. I again suggest you learn these policies of WP before slashing articles wholesale. Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy. Everyone is eager to learn the results of the DNA testing. I have no doubt that it will lead to more national headlines. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the comments from Bundlesofsticks <Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.> "New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 “Lawyers for Mr. Manning have argued that the case has serious holes. Some of the trial witnesses gave accounts inconsistent with known facts, they said, and one key witness, the former girlfriend, was given a favorable plea deal on fraud charges as well as nearly $18,000 in reward money after testifying for the prosecution, details not fully disclosed to the trial jury. Mr. Manning’s lawyers also pointed to fingerprints found in Ms. Miller’s car, which had been driven elsewhere and abandoned after the killings. None of the prints matched Mr. Manning’s, and multiple prints were found that did not match those of the victims.” <The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.> WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." There appears to be no editorial oversight involved in the Dispatch article that I removed. http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= To publish a ‘news story’ that presents Manning in so bad a light, without reference to the wider context and without presenting an alternative or mitigating viewpoint (at a time when well-established news outlets were reporting indications of a possible wrongful conviction), is at the very least sensationalist, in keeping with the tabloid press. The wider context at that time was: New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The State of Mississippi has denied requests for DNA testing of evidence made by a prisoner set to be executed on Tuesday, potentially setting up what experts said would be a rare case in recent years in which a person is put to death with such requests unmet. <Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.> WP:BLP Avoid misuse of primary sources . Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. <Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.> It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk • WP:GRAPEVINE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:BLPREMOVE Smallnslow (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appeals court. Arguments that lawyers are making to have a conviction overturned do not factor into editing decisions. Unless you want to start a paragraph "alleged problems with the cases," which would necessarily have to cite the kind of court documents you claim are barred from the article.

Wikipedia is also not a journalism review board. The Commercial Dispatch of Columbus is a reputable newspaper written and run by professional journalists. It is an RS. Compare that to a blog. A blog is not an RS. Newspapers and other RS refer to a person as an "alleged murderer" before he is convicted and a "convicted murderer" after. Manning was convicted not once, but twice, in two separate trials, nearly 20 years ago, of double murder. He is a double double murderer. No newspaper will refer to a killer as an "alleged murderer" after conviction. Your beef with the Commercial Dispatch is without merit.

Court records are fair sources in an article about a court case that has been written about in secondary sources.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason this case has garnered the attention it has in the national media is because of the FBI rescinding an evidence report it issued, an extremely unusual situation, although I don't know about "historic." The FBI action is being discussed in terms of whether it is a new policy that will affect other cases. The second reason this is notable is because Manning was convicted of two separate double murders. I cannot think of anyone else who committed two double murders. In the original version of the page, it stated Manning had "the unique distinction" of that; another editor quickly changed it to "rare," and since I wasn't able to document that Manning's status is completely unique, I didn't object or revert. Now you have removed even "rare." What makes this a truly unique set of circumstances is that a court could decide to completely throw out Manning's conviction on the first double murder (Steckler-Miller) on the basis of the FBI report but Manning could still be executed for the second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan). Or Manning could be executed for Jimmerson-Jordan while the latest Steckler-Miller appeal is still ongoing. Either way, this case has already been considered noteworthy.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bundlesofsticks, I think people are convicted all the time of multiple murder. Even if the conviction of killing one of them is overturned on appeal, the person often still serves the original sentence (e.g. life in prison). IMHO, the only potentially historic thing here is the FBI rescission, but it needs to be explained better in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Manning case is significant as the first of 27 cases the FBI is reviewing, which might indicate a significant policy change. I will work on the lede. You are correct that there are multiple murders all the time. The unique thing about this is TWO SEPARATE double murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if someone does three separate double murders, or two separate triple murders, then they get a Wikipedia article? In any multiple murder, the prosecutor can decide to charge separately for each one, so I still don't see the significance of that. But the FBI policy change might be enough significance for an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if you can't have your way with the article, you don't want it to exist at all. That is censorship. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ludlow BLP Violation

I reverted this edit as it was in the lead and misrepresented the source. The source summarises the story of a student suing a university for allegedly failing to act on sexual harassment allegations. The edit changed the onus of the lawsuit from the university to the subject, and exaggerated the allegations. The talk page discussion also violates BLP and I believe the edit summaries beginning with this one, may need redacting - and some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources. This source seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined, however it doesn't support the current allegations. Could an admin please have a look a and consider redacting edit summaries (I have changed the section heading for posts going forward). Is it OK for me to refactor or strike through those sections of posts which are in violation? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

With a new source being provided in this talk page edit, I would like to propose the following addition to the article:

"In response to a lawsuit by a former student, Northwestern University detailed it's finding that in 2012 Ludlow had violated its sexual harassment code and was the subject of disciplinary action."<ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-23/news/ct-northwestern-lawsuit-met-20140223_1_student-northwestern-professor-university-administrators</ref> Ludlow was not named in the lawsuit and refutes the student's allegations of sexual harassment.<ref>http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/02/13/campus/attorney-ludlow-disputes-lawsuits-allegations/</ref> Flat Out let's discuss it 05:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flat Out that there are unacceptable edits, which need to be dealt with, but I am not sure whether everything he/she says is right. I will outline some of my thoughts on the matter, and I will welcome constructive comments about what I say, both from Flat Out and from others.

I have checked the edit in the first link Flat Out provides, and compared it with the sources it cites. I agree that there are problems with the edit, for reasons which I will explain below, but I don't see how the edit "changed the onus of the lawsuit". If that means that the edit to the article focussed mainly on the accusation against Ludlow, not on the charges against the university, then surely that is because it is an article about Ludlow, and the part of the story relating to him is what is relevant to the article. Nor do I see in what way it exaggerated the allegations. On the contrary, one problem that I see is that the edit sticks too closely to exactly what one of the sources says, so that it might be seen as verging on copyright infringement. I have looked at the edit summary in the second edit Flat Out links to, and it is not clear to me what the problem is. The edit summary says "Added section", and then states what the added section is about. It is about allegations, and it is well established by numerous sources that there have been allegations. The edit summary does not state in detail what the allegations are, and I am not clear why merely mentioning that there have been allegations is problematic.

Flat Out goes on to say "some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources". If that is so, then it is a serious cause for action. The source which Flat Out says "seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined" reads to me like a piece of tub-thumping, and I have doubts as to how reliable a source it is. However, it is probably reliable enough to support that specific statement. Flat Out goes on to say that it "doesn't support the current allegations". Does that mean the specific accusations said to have been made by a student? If so, then that is an important point. No matter how many reliable sources we can find that say that a student has said "such and such a person did such and such things", that is only evidence that someone has made that accusation, not that the accusation is valid. A very common mistake is to think that Wikipedia uses the same standards as respectable newspapers, which follow the principle that an allegation made in court may be reported as an allegation, whether or not it is justified. That is not so: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says, amongst other things, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." It therefore seems to me that the article should not contain statements about the specific allegations against the person in question, since, as far as I am aware, the only source saying that he did those things is the say-so of an unnamed student.

I see that the article's talk page contains specific statements about what is supposed to have been done, which are given in quotation marks, and accompanied by links to sources, which clearly implies that the quoted words are taken from one of the sources, but in fact neither of the sources says anything resembling the "quoted" text. That is clearly unacceptable, and I shall certainly redact that. It also seems likely that there is other content which should be removed form one or other of the article, its talk page, or the editing history of those pages. However, for now I will leave it at that, and wait to see whether anyone else has anything to say about exactly what needs doing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The following post was originally placed immediately after my statement "The edit summary does not state in detail what the allegations are, and I am not clear why merely mentioning that there have been allegations is problematic" above. I am moving it here to make it clear that my comments above were all one post. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The section heading added which was carried forward in edit summaries included the word "assault" until I changed it to "Controversy." I can't see anything reliable that supports allegations of assault. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thanks for protectign the article and addressing the BLP violations, I tried a couple of times to get this done without success. I also note that the italics quotes you mention do not match what is said in the sources provided. I agree that the student allegations are not enough and it was on that basis I reverted the original article edit. The "current allegations" I alluded to are those maded on the talk page that allege an assault. My proposed edit is based on a report that that university found the subject had breached their sexual harassment code and that the subject was disciplined. I remain concerned that the edit summaries commencing with this one are a BLP violation. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• There has now been over 48 hours since this section was started, and announced on the article's talk page. So far, apart from Flat Out, none of the participants in the talk page discussion there has chosen to comment here, but of course they are still welcome to do so. It is also 43 hours and some minutes since the article was protected, with a prominent notice inviting discussion on the talk page, but none of the participants in the earlier discussions has yet commented since then.
• I have now revision-deleted violations of WP:BLP from both the article and the talk page. (Incidentally, in the course of checking, I found another, unrelated, BLP violation from much longer ago, and revision deleted that too.) Having considered what Flat Out has said above, I have decided that the comments referring to the nature of the "allegations", both in edit summaries and in the text of the talk page, can reasonably be regarded as BLP violations, so I have included those in the revision deletion.
• I am here in my capacity as an administrator, not as an editor. I initially came to the article in response to a request for administrative action made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and I subsequently came to this discussion in response to a post on my talk page. I do not wish to get involved in the editing of the article, nor in discussions about how to do so, beyond the specific issue of dealing with violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. I will therefore express no opinion on the merits or otherwise of Flat Out's proposed addition to the article, beyond saying that it does seem to me to avoid the BLP problems that have been mentioned. I also suggest to Flat Out that it might be a good idea to post the proposal on the article's talk page, since there may well be editors who look at that page but don't follow the link to this discussion, and it would be advantageous to give them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose Close - given that none of the editors pushing to have the allegations included in the article have bothered to enter discussion, I propose the discussion be closed and the article protection amended to all edits by unconfirmed edits requiring review. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've removed the full protection, and set "pending changes". For the moment I have set it to run for three months, but that could be reviewed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – The revisions listed don't violate BLP. Without these revisions the article would violate BLP. Atsme, Don't ignore everything being said because you think some comments are inflammatory. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Input is needed, and would be greatly appreciated. I've made two revisions on Anjem Choudary which were reverted by User:Parrot of Doom and User:Bencherlite. You can read the exchanges on Anjem Choudary (Talk). I know better than to get into an edit war, so I did not intentionally change anything after the reverts were made by the two editors mentioned. I remained neutral, maintained an open-mind, and started a discussion on Choudary Talk. I visited the revision history to review and compare the differences between edits in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind their decision. For reasons unbeknownst to me, clicking on cur or prev inadvertently triggered reverts, even though I never used the undo or restore command. Hopefully someone can explain why it is happening because the inadvertent reverts have escalated into vandalism notices, and later into page protection by Admin Darkwind. In fact, it happened to me again today on Darkwind's talk page, of all places, so I sent him an email explaining what happened. Could it be something Safari is causing? Whatever it is, I hope someone can provide an answer.

Back on topic - my revisions for Choudary can be seen here. I edited only the first three paragraphs of the article. The rest remains in tact. Back in January 2014 on Choudary Talk, User:66.225.160.9 recommended updating the article to include mention of Choudary's interview on BBC Radio 4 in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial. No updates were made until my recent attempt to include mention of the connection between one of the murderers of Lee Rigby, and Al-Muhajiroun, a terrorist organization that was co-founded by Choudary. That part of the revision was omitted along with everything else in my edit. I was under the impression editors were supposed to collaborate, not WP:OWN, and prevent anyone else from editing or updating it, especially important updates. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with Choudary which is why I brought it here for discussion. There is an obvious POV/omission issue that needs to be resolved. To date, three editors are in agreement that Choudary needs review, including myself, Sportfan5000, and Coretheapple.

I also felt it was necessary to bring awareness to other POV/omissions in other bios and organizations of the same genre in hopes of finding common ground, and possibly even a standard that editors can easily follow. Admin DougWeller suggested bringing my concerns here. The common denominator for my examples are Islamism, Sharia, Islamophobia, terrorists, and extremists. I'll start with Pamela Geller who is portrayed in Wiki as being known "primarily for her criticism of Islamism and opposition to Islamic activities and causes.". That statement is only partially true, and there is no balance to the article whatsoever - no mention of the awards, or commendations Geller has received for her work. It goes on to say that her viewpoints are described as "anti-Islamic or Islamophobic" which is clearly POV, and not the result of a doctor's diagnosis of a "phobia", so whoever described her viewpoints are guilty of POV themselves. The lead-in further portrays her as a co-founder of organizations that were labeled as "hate groups by UK government officials". A "hate group" label is clearly a POV issue, and in no way portrays actual events, or self-proclamation. What would happen if one of the groups Choudary founded was labeled as a "hate group"? There is no mention of opposing views showing that Geller's organizations were given recognition and awards for their efforts in the U.S. Rather than go into lengthy detail, I hope editors will take the time to read the following, and provide input.

Please compare the editing of Pamela Geller vs Anjem Choudary vs Steven Emerson. Please do the same for SIOA vs Al-Muhajiroun vs Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Please pay attention to the "Series On Islamophobia" as noted in the SIOA article. Is there a similar series on Islamist Extremism showing a network of known terrorist organizations and offshoots of those organizations that were banned from the U.K., including al-Muhajiroun, Al Ghurabaa, Islam4UK, and the list goes on, all of which were either founded or presided over by Choudary?

I look forward to reading the responses. Thank you in advance… Ms Atsme (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• If this isn't forum shopping is very close to it. There's an open RFC. To me bringing this here while another process is going is dubious.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho Sorry for the "dubiousity" - it wasn't intentional, and there's no forum shopping going on. If I'm going forum shopping, it's going to be at Forum Mall, and will involve the purchase of new shoes, and a dress. Did you not see the notice of the move to BLP-N dated Feb 28th? It's near the bottom of Choudary Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did see where you moved it. That's how I got here. I also see where you didn't take part in it even though where involved in the debate prior to that. While it may not be Forum shopping per se it seems it is in spirit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Atsme:You should add all of the articles and the issues that you have that you think violate BPL seperately. As for Anjem Choudary I suggest you ignore the inflamatory comments for a moment and read what else is being said. You proposed changes would violate Wikipedia:BLP. You labeling this individual "Extreme" is certainly not NPOV. You use a number of sources that are in noway reliable. The Globe Mail is a tabloid. WP:BLPSOURCES Material should not be added when the only source is a tabloid. They are completely justified in their revisions. Take stock in what they have said on the talk page. Your professional carreer as a writer doesn't offer you any stature over those other editors. If really seems you are aiming at ownership with those comments. I would you go back to the talk page and propose those changes when you have reliable sources. I would also recommend you be careful in the language you use when editing. You may feel this individual is an extremist as may your source. Y'all have the right to your opinion. Wikipedia however does not have an opinion. It is nuetral. I'm going close this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cesar Milan - the Dog Whisperer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – This was moved to the RSN.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesar Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a famous dog trainer but with controversial methods. This has affected the article for years. Yesterday two sections were removed from the criticism section (now retitled controversy). One section, criticising his methods and his show the Dog Whisperer, was removed with the edit summary "this belongs in Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan, not this BLP". I don't understand this as it was about both the show and his methods. A second section about a campaign against these methods backed by a number of well known organisations such as the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, The World Society for the Protection of Animals, " Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour was removed with an edit summary that it was not a reliable source.[4]. I replaced it as I strongly disagree that it is not a reliable source for the campaign and the views of the sponsoring organisation, and it's been removed again. Here is the press release[5] and here[6] is a page about the sponsoring organisations. User:Dreadstar has brought this up on the talk page, asking if it is an organisation known for fact checking, etc. I don't think that's the point here. The edit itself says "In March 2010, various preeminent UK animal welfare, behaviour, training, canine and veterinary organisations issued a joint statement in which they warned against the dog training techniques used by Cesar Milan: "The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour." I see no reason to think that the website is not telling the truth about this. I also think that the other paragraph that was removed should be in both articles as it is about his methods. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No comments, so taking this to RSN. Anyone still interested please respond there. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Devyani Khobragade

Not necessarily a violation as such, just felt that people with experience in BLP might want to cast an eye over this one to ensure everything is appropriately neutral and fairly weighted. Draft:Devyani Khobragade --_nonsense ferret 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have two wholly negative articles that involve this person, not sure why we need a biography as well. I hope that never makes it to article space. It's like a more advanced version of WP:BLP1E called BLP2E... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It has now been published - Devyani Khobragade - I am not sure what to make of it all, I expect we've seen notorious serial killers with less unrelentingly negative coverage. Bit of a campaign, of sorts. --_nonsense ferret 08:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Herman Branover

The article on Herman Branover Herman Branover is a blantant misrepresentation.

The claims of status as an educator in the Jewish world, and the phrases "known in the scientific community", "pioneer" and "led to many spin-off...", are weasel words. There are no cites to support any of this, and it seems doubtful that any will be found.

The authors of the Wikipedia article want to create a myth around his scientific credentials to support his writings on religious subjects.

Indeed his writings on science and religion often grossly misrepresent scientific positions (for example see his book "Science in the Light of Torah"), and as a scientist, his h-index is modest at best (see Google Scholar).

I submit that after correcting the page to more accurately describe his work and writings, it should be locked against further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.226.6 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, this biography should be improved, as should a large percentage of our 4,461,942 articles. You can improve this article or any of those others at any time.Just click the "edit" button and get to work. Please explain why you believe that the problems with this particular article are so severe that it should be " locked against further edits". That is an extreme solution to what appears to me to be routine problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Curran_Stewart

Dear Wiki,

Please help me to resolve this issue:

On the page for Gordon Curran Stewart, the following warnings/disclaimers appear, all made in December 2013:

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (December 2013

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2013)

Regarding subjectivity: I have read through the article and have removed a sentence that was subjective. Aside from that sentence I do not see anything else that could be deemed to "promote[] the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Please, can you check the article and see if the corrections are sufficient and if they are then remove the warning from the top of the page? If the corrections are insufficient, then please let me know exactly what needs to be changed so that the appropriate edits can be made.

Regarding neutrality: It is not specified on the talk page what exactly is disputed. It says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." The article was accepted onto Wiki as a result of an editing process that involved a requirement of neutrality. Certainly there is nothing on the page that can be considered to be "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". And there is nothing on the page that is potentially libelous. Is it possible to either learn more about the "dispute" so that it can be remedied, and if not then to remove the notice referring to a dispute?

Regarding copy editing: A small number of minor edits have been made, and the article now appears to no longer require copy editing. Please, can you remove the notice?

Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdelamare (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be rather a lot of content in that biography that has no reference --_nonsense ferret 18:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Don Mellett

Don Mellett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are absolutely no references at all on this bio, which contains considerable information implicating others in criminal activity. Seems to be eligible for deletion under WP:BLP1E. Unsure what to do about the article. I don't have the time or desire to research the event, but all the unreferenced negative info about living people seems to be a problem. John from Idegon (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the subject of the article dies in 1926, and the other people mentioned were presumably adults at that time, it is improbable that any living person is involved, so neither this page nor WP:BLP1E is relevant. However, if you wish to nominate the article for deletion as lacking evidence of notability, then go ahead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm working to add sources. --Auric talk 00:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Hi,

Someone as been making some questionable additions to Howard Stern's Talk Page. It does seem that these edits are simply intended to take shots a Stern and his wife. Similar edits were made to the Howard Stern itself, but the page was protected (diff). Apparently this IP editor figured out that such protection does not extend to the article's talk page. Still fairly new at Wikipedia, so not sure what to do. If I'm asking in the wrong place about this, then apologies in advance. Maybe a more experienced editor or an admin can check it out? Thanks - Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I warned the IP, next time I'll request a block. You can do so too at WP:AIV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed like a pattern had been established, but I just wanted to hear what others thought. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stern-related pages have been BLP nightmares for years. It's worth considering putting them all under pending changes level protection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tipu Aziz

In the article about Tipu Aziz it says in the first paragraph:

"Tipu Zahed Aziz (born 1956)" which is in contrary to the infobox, where it says:

"Born 1966 (age 47–48) East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)"

I can't find any reliable information about his age. If anybody does know his real age, please feel free to edit. Rosannn (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Murry Salby has just been added to this excuse for an article, the citation used for the contentious statement of fact is an opinion piece in the Guardian. I was under the impression that opinion pieces are not to be used for statements of fact on a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Added a second reference to an article critiquing his anti-anthropogenic warming stance. I don't like the fact this list is even given the time of day on Wikipedia, but if it has to exist it might as well be accurate. Looks like Salby has earned his position on this particular wall of shame. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The list is full of such stuff -- I would note that the "volcano issue" was just raised by mainstream folks as a reason for why climate change has not proceeded on its projected course. And, IMHO, opinion pieces are not really suitable for making any claims of fact at all. [7] Guardian actual article. Collect (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Peethambara_Kurup

The religion marked in the article as Pervertism is defamatory and politically motivated. Thanks for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.173.195 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism. It has been removed.--Auric talk 22:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Scott

I am acquainted with Mike Scott (musician) and he has sent me a concerned email about his own article and that of Camille O'Sullivan. His remarks are essentially that he feels his privacy is being violated as a result of recent edits by what seems to be the single-purpose account BurlesqueCoversGalére (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). I have amended both articles [8] [9] but I am requesting more eyes/views on this as although I have been around the block I almost never edit BLPs and am not familiar with the relevant protocols. In essence Mr Scott is saying:

1. I am not divorced.
2. It is a matter of record that I recently became a parent.
3. The name of the mother of the child is not the public domain and speculation about this matter is a violation of his, the mother and his child’s privacy.

I have alerted the above user to this thread [10]. I will also inform Mr. Scott about the revision deletion option above. Ben MacDui 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

António Janet

António Lopes Jonet competed at the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games in Men's Modern Pentathlon. I tried to correct his name which is written with an "o" not "a", as it is in the wrongful source, but I wasn't successful. He is also not a living person, as he died in September 21, 2007. My sources are: http://www.geneall.net/P/per_page.php?id=578684 and I'm his grand-nephew. SakasFixe (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't belong here: the talk page of the article would be more appropriate, possibly with a {{helpme}} tag to attract other editors. Nevertheless, I will comment on it here. The source you give suggests that there existed a person called "Antonio Cid Juzarte Lopes Jonet", born on the date stated in the Wikipedia article, and he may well have been the athlete in question, but the source doesn't say so. A Google search for "António Jonet" Olympics 1952 produces no hits at all, while "António Janet" Olympics 1952 produces 132 hits, but none of those that I have checked looks like a reliable source. Can you provide a reliable source that says that his name was Jonet and that he competed in the 1952 Olympic Games? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Google searches for "António Janet" Jogos Olímpicos 1952 and for "António Jonet" Jogos Olímpicos 1952 are no more helpful, and Portuguese Wikipedia does not have an article about him as either Janet or Jonet, with or without the "Lopes". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources for either name, I have made a judgement that on balance Jonet is more likely, so I have moved the article. However, a really reliable source one way or the other would be appreciated. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandra_Bravo

Dear Sirs, I would like to respectfully ask that the Wikipedia web page about Alejandra Bravo would be completely eliminated. During part of 2012 and all 2013 year this page has posted biased information, without hard evidence about myself. This page has had multiple changes by people who clearly seek to discredit me and which have severely harmed my public image. This page contain poorly sourced material, with libelous potentially intentions. Most of the comments have been based on materials that were published in Mexican newspapers with information out of context, resulting defamatory. Wikipedia pages should not mislead the reader into believing that something false is real. In addition Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions, it is an encyclopedia and therefore the information described on the Alejandra Bravo’s page does not correspond to encyclopedic information.

If you want specific information on the incorporated slurs, I can mention some examples: 1. In the Wikipedia page Alejandra Bravo in Spanish said: “En septiembre de 2012 un grupo de investigadores publicó una revisión crítica sobre los modelos de acción de los insecticidas de Bacillus thuringiensis en el cual se concluía que los modelos mexicanos no eran replicables, basándose en el análisis de once publicaciones de Alejandra Bravo y su esposo Mario Soberón.4” (In September 2012 a group of researchers published a critical review of the models of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides in which they concluded that Mexicans model was not replicable, based on the analysis of eleven publications of Alejandra Bravo and her husband Mario Soberón.4 "). Reference 4 (Vachont , Vincent ; Laprade , Reynald , Schwartz, Jean -Louis (2012 ) ' Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins : A critical review "( in English ) Science Direct Accessed . . February 15, 2014), does not mention anywhere that the data on Bravo and Soberon were not reproducible. Similarly, it did not mention at all that eleven publications under authorship of these Mexican researchers were questionable. So this whole paragraph is a defamation that used a scientific article, that is solid, to support their false arguments. This paragraph is misleading real information it is a tort of false light.

2. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish said that " ... Debido a esto ambos científicos fueron separados de sus cargos, …” (Because of this both scientists were removed from their positions). Bravo and Soberon were never separated from their university positions; they are professors, senior researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, UNAM. This statement was a lie published in the newspaper La Jornada. You mentioned that you will be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. A newspaper publication should not be taken as a reliable source of facts, especially if they were not true. This is also a clear defamation to Bravo and Soberon status.

3. The conclusion of the evaluation committee mentioned in Wikipedia are not correct. Again misleading information, presenting written statements out of context, completely biased, are damaging the researchers. The main conclusion of the commission was that the modifications of the figures did not change at all the scientific content of these publications and for this reason they did not recommended to remove any publication.

4. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish it states that "… También trascendió que los científicos habían aceptado su error, comunicándose con los editores de las revistas de aquellas publicaciones afectadas, quienes no pidieron correcciones o fe de erratas.4…” (... It was also learned that scientists had accepted his mistake by contacting the publishers of the journals of the affected publications, who did asked corrections.4). Bravo and Soberon sent corrections to their publications for " Motus propio" without anyone 's asked which were accepted by the journals. No retraction was done. This was reported by the La Jornada newspaper but did not take into account for the Wikipedia editors even thought that this newspaper has been the main source of information from this Wikipedia page. Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie

5. The Wikipedia page in Spanish states "…por el hecho de haber «manipulado» las imágenes en 2 de las publicaciones. El caso llamó la atención de la Oficina de Integridad Científica (ORI) de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud de Estados Unidos (NIH), la cual revisó los hechos…”( ... the fact of having" manipulated " images in 2 publications. The case caught the attention of the Office of Scientific Integrity (ORI ) of the [ [National Institutes of Health (USA) | National Institutes of Health in the United States ] ] (NIH ) , which reviewed the facts ... " This is another slanderous lie that has caused a lot of damage. ORI 's office did not review the case because the manipulation of images of two articles caught their attention. ORI review the case because the accused researchers had an active grant from the NIH. The ORI is responsible for monitoring complaints of misconduct in biomedical research projects that receive support from agencies related to public health services in USA. The final ORI 's report concludes that Bravo and Soberon researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) did not commit misconduct. They did not suspend the financial support that NHI gives to Bravo and Soberon. This was reported by La Jornada and by the Mexican Academy of Sciences: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-la-ori-que-mario-soberon-y-alejandra-bravo-no-incurrieron-en-falta/

6. The description of the actions of the University Rights Ombudsman was incorrect. The UNAM-University Rights Ombudsman (DDU), determined to initiate an investigation for possible effects on rights of Dr. Alejandra Bravo and Dr. Mario Soberon. Advocacy recommended terminating the sanctions given the large number of violations of rights of these university researchers. The authorities involved accepted the recommendation of DDU and researchers can receive students and recovered their academic leadership of research groups at Biotechnology Institute of UNAM. This case was closed, researchers since both researchers showed that they did not commit any scientific fraud to the university authorities, to authorities ORI NHI, and to the scientific journals. Even more, it was published recently a scientific paper in the journal Biochemical Journal in which Bravo and Soberon showed experimental scientific evidence demonstrating that the model of the mechanism of action of Cry toxins that they propose remains valid.

Finally it is important to mention that the same Mexicans newspapers that actively participated in this case publishing erroneous information also reported that communications in the newspapers contribute to generate an important public image damage of Bravo and Soberon, as well as harm their reputation and prestige as scientists.

The newspaper La Jornada reported that “A partir de la intervención de la Defensoría se trata de un caso cerrado, pero que produjo un gran daño a dos científicos mexicanos” (From the intervention of the Ombudsman is a close case, but that resulted in severe damage to two scientists" Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/10/15/index.php?section=ciencias&article=a03a1cie&partner=rss

http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-en-la-unam-caso-de-alejandra-bravo-y-mario-soberon/

Finally the ex-rector of UNAM Dr. Juan Ramon de la Fuente wrote about the participation DDU-UNAM and said “Sobresale la UNAM, por supuesto, que supo poner en juego las fortalezas de la ciencia, para eviitar que dos de los mejores investigadores de los que Mexico dispone, Alejandra Bravo y Mario Soberón, vieran truncadas sus carreras, victimas de una suspicacia excesiva y de esa terrible distorcion vital que experimentan algunos ante el exito de otros: la envidia.” (The UNAM excels, of course, who knew how to bring into play the strengths of science, for stop that two of the best researchers of Mexico, Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, saw their careers cut short, victims of excessive suspicion and a terrible vital distortion that some people experienced in front of the success of others: the envy. Ref: http://www.eluniversalmas.com.mx/editoriales/2013/10/66876.php

For all the above reasons, I suggest and request that the Wikipedia Alejandra Bravo’s page will be removed completely. A severe damage has been done and since the case is closed, all arguments must stop immediately. You mentioned that Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Then I just ask that to keep your word and make it true. Attentively, Alejandra Bravo

--Yocize2 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

:You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no experience of using or editing Spanish Wikipedia, so I can't tell you how to go about raising the issue there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We've also got an article on the person here and Yocize2 removed a sizeable chunk related to a controversy here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that after making the above post, and was writing a corrected version of my post when you edit-conflicted me. Here is the corrected version:

You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. As far as the English Wikipedia article is concerned, I see that you have removed all mention of the incident, rather than adjusting it to give a more balanced account. If my understanding is correct, it is accepted that you did falsify images, but it was decided that the sanctions taken against you were excessive, in which case it is not obvious why all mention of the incident should be suppressed. In any case, the fact that you believe that the account given of this one incident has been misleading is scarcely adequate reason to delete the whole article. (I also see that you are currently blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for repeatedly removing content from an article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Erik Prince

I'd like a quick sanity check on Erik Prince#Family. While the sources seem to check out, the tone is venomous. It's more a matter of neutral point of view and whether it's meaningful for the article. The subject of the article is a magnet for attacks due to his role in creating Blackwater, and I presume that's the reason the defamatory material was added. I've previously reverted uncited claims of sexual rumors, including a claim of a homosexual affair. With these recent additions, I'm not sure where to draw the line. Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it all, pending a balanced rewrite that does not put massively undue weight on that part of his life. A mention of the fact that he had an affair might, maybe be proper, but three extensive blockquotes is inappropriate in the extreme. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the independent review. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician)

Has an extended section with a single source in the BLP

In 2011, The New Yorker magazine reported that Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. According to the article,[4] written by Evan Ratliff, the incident resulted from a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, "I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him." Grimm reportedly then returned to the nightclub twice, pulled out his gun once, and brought FBI and NYPD officers the second time. Grimm said the article was written by a reporter "on a witch hunt" and that "this incident was fully investigated and I was cleared of all of the ridiculous and absurd allegations. To further entertain this partisan attack on my exemplary career and service to this great nation would be to give [the allegation] credence, of which it deserves none." The New York Police Department and U.S. Justice Department have refused to release documents regarding the incident.[5][6][7] Ratliff subsequently released additional material corroborating his article.[8

All of which is sourced to one "investigative article" and the rest to a press release from a political opponent in a campaign which basically says Grimm should waive his Constitutional rights and have sealed documents made public. There is no "outside RS" provided, and while the event might warrant a sentence, the weight in the BLP is WP:UNDUE to say the least, and stresses a "fucking" quotation which has only the single source - the main accusation and demand that he release the sealed documents seems to be a political campaign issue raised by DeBlasio, and not actually reaching other reliable sources. Ratliff, byy the way, did not give anything substantive "corroborating" the incident. (yep -- reading sources sometimes shows them being overstated in articles, alas) So the questions are -- is the section coverage UNDUE? Does it contain material not strongly sourced to reliable sources? Is the reporting in the BLP in any way campaignish? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker is an excellent source. Grimm's quoted rebuttal is longer than the quotation giving Grimm's original remark, so I don't think there's any problem with balance here (I wouldn't want to reduce the former -- would you??). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is worth the length and weight given thereto? Note that it is the sole source for the claims made. Collect (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Posit this:

''In 2011, Evan Ratliff in a The New Yorker magazine article said Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. The allegation centered on a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. After leaving, Grimm reportedly re-entered the bar with FBI and NYPD officers. Grimm dismissed the story as a "witch hunt" and that "this incident was fully investigated and I was cleared of all of the ridiculous and absurd allegations."

Which covers the allegation and denial, and avoids the weird bit that agencies which can not release the sealed material did not release what they legally could not release. I suggest this is NPOV and gives sufficient and proper weight to the allegation and denial. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you want to quote from Grimm's rebuttal but not from his original outburst? That's odd. From what you write above and from the way you posted about the other quotation where he said "fucking", I get the sense you don't like "fucking" very much. In any event, I don't understand the objection to quoting from what he said (as reported in a perfectly reliable source), particularly if you want to quote his rebuttal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The "reliable source" makes a contentious claim not found in any other source ... his response is found in several RS sources. But to be fair then:

In 2011, Evan Ratliff in a The New Yorker magazine article said Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. The allegation centered on a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. After leaving, Grimm reportedly re-entered the bar with FBI and NYPD officers. Grimm dismissed the story as a witch hunt.

Which should fully meet your position that we ought not give too long a quote from Grimm. And yes when only one source says "fucking" that is a contentious claim. I am sure you would not want to possibly use a single source for a contentious claim, right? Collect (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is "fucking" a contentious claim? Does Grimm deny saying it? He seems not to have a problem with the word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim is found in a single source only -- and I consider the word to be of no actual encyclopedic value here -- do you find emphasizing fucking in BLPs to be a mark of great biographical writing? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm only saying that I don't find your argument persuasive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pray tell -- what does fucking add to the BLP section under discussion? The section is surely not about his vocabulary but about the incident of him bringing in NYPD and FBI agents to the bar -- and does the word fucking really affect the incident and the lack of any charges being bought. If a random person said say fucking would it be right to add fucking to each topic related to that person, or is fucking possibly there to simply reinforce the position that - totally unrelated to the section topic at hand --- the person can say fucking at times? If the latter, than the use of it is "fucking awful". Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you only talk about the "fucking"? - what is about the "I’ll ... make him disappear where nobody will find him." part? Your edits regarding Grimm a clearly not NPOV [11]

BBC: "You ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this [expletive] balcony." - for example. [12] --IIIraute (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you did not know it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, gossip sheet, or newspaper. The issue is whether the material is of biographical value in the BLP, and whether it is presented with proper weight in the BLP. If you feel the salient and important issue is expletives, I suggest you seek to rewrite WP:BLP which is the governing policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No no -- Illraute is not talking about expletives, he's proposed a way to convey the information by bypassing the expletive (which is fine with me). Instead of offering a condescending lecture, I suggest you engage with his proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that is the best summary and also that it should be sourced to one of the papers reporting the New Yorker story. I question though whether it is important enough to include, since the fact only a few local papers picked up on the magazine story shows it probably is insignificant. A member of the public complained about a police officer, but we do not know whether it was credible and the policeman's employers took no action against him following their investigation, and it was not reported at the time. There is nothing significant about that. TFD (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with removing that edit from the page, I further disagree with removing it under "BLP". The edit it sourced, reliably, the edit is a notable event and it was being reported just as the reliable source reported it. There was no reason to remove it. As it's not a BLP issue, it should be put back in per consensus on the talk page (which already exists )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I object strongly to the political sanitization of this biography. The news event in question was not an "interview," the news event in question was an on-camera threat delivered by the Congressman, the text of which has been documented by the New York Times and elsewhere. That the editing disagreement has been locked down in sanitized state by Administrator User:John is an utterly reprehensible example of administrative tool abuse. That he refuses to undo his abusive action is appalling. It's pretty clear that tools do not belong in some hands, and I would include this administrator on that list. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares whether the text has been documented. The problem isn't that nobody believes he said it, the problem is that it's not important enough to include. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a matter of editorial judgment. It isn't a BLP violation (unsourced/poorly sourced), and so it isn't a situation where an admin can use the tools to enforce his preferred version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite, Nomoskedasticity and KoshVorlon. The incident received worldwide news coverage - more than enough reliable secondary sources are available → WP:RS, such as: Reuters, Germany: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, United Kingdom: BBC, The Guardian, France: Le Figaro, Spain: El País, Italy: la Repubblica, Austria: Die Presse, Canada: The Globe and Mail, Australia: The Australian, Israel: The Times of Israel, Brazil: O Globo, etc. [13] --IIIraute (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Trinity St. Clair/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair

I'm bothered by the extent to which the desire to keep this article about an otherwise non-notable porn performer has led to increasingly detailed COATRACKing of articles related to a notable, but not widely known to the public, movie industry figure. Even though the key elements of the associated scandal have never been reliably confirmed as factual (although a very plausible case has been established). In the nine months or so since the scandal broke, the (sex-related) details of the scandal were excluded from the article on the notable studio executive, with BLP issues raised -- but over the last few weeks editors pushing to keep this porn performer article have been adding reported (but never quite confirmed) details of the scandal to various BLPs (usually with the never-quite-confirmed details presented as established facts.) I believe the longstanding treatment of the matter was more sensitive to BLP policy principles and more appropriate, and that those concerns should not be outweighed by the desire to keep articles about the porn performers involved. Further scrutiny would be appreciated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Indy_Selvarajah

Indy Selvarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability

This article is misleading, It states that he has created a comedy series for channel 4 UK, yet it was a short pilot, shown once on channel4's experimental comedy lab. The references and praise refer to the "Comedy Lab" show itself & not the segment produced by Mr Selvarajah

Other than this I cant find anything else notable to hang an entire article off for this person.

His IMDB lists one credit as a writer/actor, one episode.

His page also mentions advertising awards and yet I find zero references to this on alengthy google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.174 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sudhir Choudhrie

I'm surprised that we got nothing on Sudhir Choudhrie. Was a previous article deleted or is he simply not notable?

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559367/Lib-Dem-donor-gave-Clegg-500-000-arrested-multi-million-Rolls-Royce-corruption-probe.html
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sudhir-Choudhrie-High-flying-arms-dealer-may-finally-be-grounded/articleshow/31300678.cms
• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579382912304294786

Etc. Hcobb (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no sign of a previous article. I doubt it would get deleted if you created one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a child molester

It is pure coincidence that I'm on ANI again, but with User:BlueSalix reverting and insisting on calling someone a "child molester" who has never been charged let alone convicted of this extremely heinous crime, it seemed serious enough to warrant an immediate admin look-see. Additionally, the person he's citing never used the phrase "child molester," a label that implies a continuing pattern.

It is an ad-hominem attack to claim User:BlueSalix is insisting on calling someone a child molester. The issue is whether the statement made is true, well sourced, consistent with the source, notable, relevant and consistent with WP practices. It has nothing to do with User:BlueSalix and it is wrong to focus the argument this way.Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I just thought before Wikipedia gives its imprimatur to a "child molester" claim against someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law, more eyes ought to look at this. [14], [15]. At the very least, we shouldn't call someone a child molester without talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 5:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – LFaraone 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to quote the exact words, which according to at least one news report were "Missed the Woody Allen tribute — did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?" (see http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ronan-farrow-takes-shot-woody-allen-tribute-article-1.1577594#ixzz2uqeBpO6O). Assuming that this quote is accurate -- and I rather suspect it is, although a 2nd source would be good in view of the serious nature of the comment -- then I don't find paraphrasing that as "Farrow called Allen a child molester" out of line. A molester can be anyone who has molested a child at least once, it need not imply a repeated pattern. In any case, edit warring over this is not a good idea. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a contentious claim but one that has gotten a lot of coverage for years. However it should be treated conservatively. It's handled well at Woody_Allen#Children, and that could possibly be a guide to how to handle it elsewhere. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should add that there is a difference between "X is a child molester" and "A called X a child molester". The former we should not include without a conviction, but the latter, while needing clear and reliable sources, and some notability for the statement to be included, does not IMO require a conviction, though we should probably add "X was never charged with such an offense." DES ^(talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct and agreed. The edit User:Bob_the_goodwin (not me) made was to say "X called Y a child molester," not "Y is a child molester." BlueSalix (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with all of the suggestions in the previous paragraph. Agree that this should be conservatively written. I chose to be concise, which I thought was the more conservative approach, but am totally open to these other approaches.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DE, while we have your attention, would you mind closing this RfC at Ronan Farrow: Talk:Ronan_Farrow#Mia_Farrow_.2F_Frank_Sinatra_Extramarital_Affair? I've filed a request at the requests for closures board but it's hopelessly backlogged. I think this is pretty cut and dry and in any other article I would close it myself, but I'm cautious on this article as virtually any edit I make gets me dragged to ANI. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I did not "insist on calling someone a child molester." User:Bob_the_goodwin made an edit in which he inserted "Farrow is estranged from his father, Woody Allen, whom he claims is a child molester." which is true, Farrow called Allen a child molester. BlueSalix did not call Allen a child molester (nor did I even make this edit except to revert a series of unilateral undos made by above editor to what User:Bob_the_goodwin contributed). A discussion on the merit of the insertion was initiated on the Talk page, but above editor decided, instead, to engage in continuous reverting of User:Bob_the_goodwin and myself. That's that.

Second, to the likely forthcoming question of WP:BOOMERANG; aside from this gross mischaracterization of the issue to cast me as some kind of culprit, I will need to note that above editor regularly files voluminous reports against me in ANI and direct appeals to Admins. While these have never yet been upheld, they have become so time consuming I have a standing policy that I no longer monitor these threads beyond an initial reply, so accept my advance apologies if I do not reply to the barrage of new charges and refutations of things I just said that I know are forthcoming. You may want to review the talk page for Ronan Farrow, or the editor's most recent ANI against me here: [[16]], or one of his more particularly vicious outbursts of name calling against other editors in these Talk archives for the same article - [[17]] - in which he calls me a "liar," "a little kid," "dishonest," a "crybaby," and a variety of other names. I know I'm risking WP:CIVIL when I say this, but his tone in this article has become so over-the-top aggressive that any modification of this article has become impossible. Many of us are really at a loss about what to do. (Note that this article has so far had 15 single-purpose sock accounts blocked at my initiation, see here for once of several cases - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive - and above editor has been outspoken in requesting investigations into these sock accounts not move forward. This may be the source of his anger at me, I really don't know.) Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, as he frequently does, produces a bludgeoning wall of text and makes bad-faith accusations. I happen to take child-molestation accusations against a living person very seriously, while he appears to be much more cavalier about the issue. He's saying that throwing around the label "child molester" is the most neutral language and the most encyclopedic tone. He and User:Bob_the_goodwin chose to use that blunt-tool phrase when more neutral phrasing could have been used.

I ask BlueSalix: How has modification of the article become "impossible" when you currently have the edit you want, calling Woody Allen a child molester? Methinks thou dost protest too much. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are, additionally, falsehoods and misstatements of fact in BlueSalixs post — all tangential, smokescreen issues not about his use of the phrase "child molester" against a living person who has never even been charged with child molestation. For one thing, the ANI posted about a fringe-science claim regarding a vaccine has been upheld with admins admonishing another editor and protecting the page. You can't just write falsehoods and then complain when someone calls you on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to the bit of the article where Allen is called a child molester by BlueSalix, rather than reported on as having been called a child molester by Farrow? In my mind there's a pretty big distinction between "X is a child molestor" and "X has been called a child molester". Could you explain why they're identical to you, and counter DES's argument? --Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can call anybody a child molester. We're repeating a heinous, unproven claim against a living person who is innocent both legally and as far as anyone knows. We — Wikipedia — are choosing to include this accusation, which a prosecutor did not feel had enough credence even to bring to trial. Since we could chose not to tar a legally innocent man as a child molester, yet are choosing to repeat this claim, then, yes, Wikipedia is saying "X is a child molester." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DESiegel about using the source's actual phrasing. We should also state the allegation briefly but precisely (i.e. that it referred to Dylan Farrow) if we use it at all. If the source didn't include the phrase "child molester" then Wikipedia editors shouldn't wp:synthesize such a description and pass it off as a "summary". I'm neutral over whether there's already too much detail about Woody Allen in the article that's supposedly about Ronan Farrow. I do think the article should say something about the estrangement, but a shorter treatment may be enough. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there was no synthesis. [18] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic.

Here now arrives another of the infamous Ronan Farrow IP editors. Right on schedule. BlueSalix (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

From a look at edit history, the above IP editor is most likely someone other than who you think.

The cited source did not have the term "child molester", so I changed the article text into a quote of Farrow's online post. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The M.O. of this PR agency's socks is establishing a minor edit history prior to engaging in this article, or the use of dormant accounts that were created in '07 and '08 and spring to life to grammar-edit miscellaneous pages a week before beginning full-time "BattleWiki" editing on Ronan Farrow. There's usually several keywords they use - and WP policies they invoke - that help you ID them, though. I can provide some examples of banned socks to demonstrate this pattern, or background from inquiries I've received off-Wiki from media who are looking into this article's extremely strange history, as I don't want to veer it off-topic. (Suffice to say I've become somewhat of an expert at identifying Bertelson's socks, though I think I'm about to throw-in the towel as I don't have the full-time bandwidth to devote to this like they do.) That said, this is a topic for another thread.

To your edit - I'm not sure Farrow posted "a woman publicly confirmed" that Allen "molested her at age 7" is functionally different from "Farrow called [Woody Allen] a child molester" but I don't have an issue with either version, so a warm thanks for offering this direction. My only real interest is that another editor made the choice to level the accusation at me in ANI that I (BlueSalix) had called Woody Allen a child molester (on the basis of me using the "revert" button to protect one of Bob the goodwin's edits). (Accept my apologies in advance if anything I just said sounds snippy; not my intent. Despite my best efforts, I have found my nerves getting a little raw due to having to daily defend myself from an editor, backed by a rotating cast of socks, who have seemingly devoted themselves to getting me blocked by spreading misrepresentations across ANI.) Anyway, thanks for weighing in on this, Binksternet! Best - BlueSalix (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there was no synthesis. here is the link: [19] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic.Bob the goodwin

That would need WP:INTEXT attribution to not be synthesis, but before being used it should also be assessed for weight and relevance, compared with the totality of documentation about the incident and about Ronan Farrow. The current version avoids the charged terminology but I think I'd back off on the tabloidy sources and rely more on the Vanity Fair article or other more careful sources. I'd also cross-reference the relevant section of the Woody Allen article that Sportfan5000 linked, and possibly mention the outcome of the police investigation (which didn't find anything to go on). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I must not have understood the word synthesis, I had assumed that since all four words I used were in the article in almost identical context that I had contributed nothing but brevity. As for adding claims of Woody's guilt or innocence, it is a slippery slope. While it is correct that charges were initiated by his ex wife, and that there was no trial, there are also well referenced articles that use other court documents to paint a very different picture. I do not think that an Article on Ronan has any business going into the how much public evidence exists, but we should be careful not to seem to take one position if we aren't willing to expand on the issue. Perhaps a simple solution is to leave the conclusion ambiguous and point to a different article. All that matters to this biography is that this notable person has chosen to make this accusation, and then not leave the impression that the opinion is the last word. I agree with your preferences for other sources.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a more detailed analysis someplace but the issue is basically explained at WP:YESPOV under "avoid stating opinions as facts". The formulation of Ronan's tweet as calling Allen a child molester is a synthesis/POV done by the Daily News, which we can use as a direct or indirect quote; but if we present the synthesis in Wikipedia's own voice (even with a footnote) then we engage in it ourselves. Obviously we're looser about this if a topic is uncontentious or if there's lots of sources saying the same thing. But allegations that a living person is a child molester is about as sensitive as it gets, so we have to use the highest level of care.

I think you're right that the passage shouldn't go into the details of the controversy and should instead link to another article to supply the context. Omitting the context completely creates a neutrality problem, however. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I should add: the reason "child molester" is a synthesis rather than a summary is that it's a highly charged phrase, so using it changes the sentence's pathos from what a straightforward quote would present. Adding this type of coloration is ok for secondary sources but not for us. We can't convincingly assert that a rephrasing is neutral just because the factual content is equivalent. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Great observation and I stand corrected. I'm still fine with either wording. Your original word choice, "Farrow called Allen a child molester" is as accurate as the current version and simply reads cleaner and more succinctly than the current version which has the choppy pacing and timbre of composition-by-committee. But, since the page protection on this article is about to expire and the flood of resume burnishing about to resume, we have bigger fish to fry (and me, personally, am facing the unenviable new flood of block campaigns from Bertelsman's accounts I'll have to spend my time defending against) to worry about splitting hairs on this one. BlueSalix (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm a bit stunned by our current wording. We essentially are endorsing that Allen is a child molester of a 7-year old girl. We can equivocate about how we are directly quoting or not actually saying what we are indeed implying but the damage is done. If we're going to crack the defamation door ajar we better get into all the details and explicitly explain if any charges have been filed, etc. I think we have this one wrong, and need to back up quickly. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That the contextual info is omitted is is a good point. As you mention further up, Woody Allen#Children seems to explain the situation pretty well. Maybe it's enough to link to that. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I agree it may be enough to link to the children link you referenced.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Question Are we bound to include everything someone writes about their father (on Twitter) in their article (even if it has been repeated by others)? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• This has been a very good discussion. I put the original words in, and agree with most comments in this section about making sure that Wikipedia does not seem to be making an accusation, and thus the wording clearly matters. It was my initial opinion that a few words clearly written in the voice of Ronan best met this goal, but the consensus decision will be better than my initial judgment. On the question of whether this is notable, relevant, and well sourced, of course it is. I think DES gave us some good guidance above on where the balance between useful and inflammatory information is drawn.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment BlueSalix, if you think there is a PR agency involved with this, can you open a thread at the COI noticeboard (WP:COIN) and post your evidence? That is better than making ABF accusations here. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please go to RfC on this issue

Bob the goodwin at the Ronan Farrow article seems so intent on calling Woody Allen a child molester that he has just removed two sentences, ported over from Woody Allen, that balance this hugely serious claim by noting no charges were ever filed and that Allen has denied the allegation. Why? Because he says it's "POV" to provide this balance and context. Please comment at Talk:Ronan Farrow#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to stop making accusations against me. There is plenty of room for debate on this wording.Bob the goodwin (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The reversion was bad because it removed the info that the allegations are disputed. I commented on this at the RFC. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o

Ignoring the obnoxious edit-wars the article currently presents, there's a BLP issue right here. IP 69.120.212.166 (talk · contribs), aka 68.194.18.81 (talk · contribs) are saying that Nyong'o is not Mexican, as being born in a country does not necessarily gives a nationality to a person. The evidence the IP editor gives is CNN en Español (link). In the interview, Lupita allegedly said "Mexico was very strange to me, coming from Kenya, but I found such friendly people and fell in love with the food, to this day, I love eating steak tacos before going to the red carpets.” she also states she made friends in Mexico when she went there to study Spanish “I still have a lot of friends [in Mexico] and I hope to go there soon." I speak Spanish, and nowhere in that video interview or the article's text Nyong'o says this, she talks about her Oscar nomination for her performance at 12 Years a Slave.There are two videos, my mistake. The problem is this IPs are saying that as she never said to CNN she is Mexican and Kenyan, it is therefore false. Despite the fact already presented Nyong'o said "Ojalá que me nominen, sería genial, y si me lo gano, garantizo que diré que soy orgullosamente mexicana" ("I hope I was nominated, it would be great, and if I win it, I'll say that I'm proudly Mexican"). Also she said (same interview, but full) "Nací en la Ciudad de México, y antes de cumplir un año me llevaron a Kenia, donde crecí. Mi padre tuvo un trabajo (como diplomático y profesor) allí, y por eso mi acta de nacimiento dice que soy mexicana, tengo ambas nacionalidades..." ("I was born in Mexico City, and before I was one-year old [my parents took me to Kenya, where I grew up. My father had a job (as diplomatic and professor) there, and that's why my birth certificate says I'm mexican, I have both nationalities)..."].

There is a current case at ANI, and a report at AN3. The problem is Nyong'o's page has been a constant target of edit-war by this IP editor falsifying a direct quote, vandalism, and as Nyong'o won the Oscar minutes ago, updates by other users. This article needs more eyes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – already at 3rrboardHell In A Bucket (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This page has been constantly edited by User:Summichum"(cur | prev) 10:57, 2 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,222 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (assasination attempts by burhani guards controlled by mufadal)" and User:Ftutocdg. they are adding information that are libelous and sourced from forums"(cur | prev) 15:25, 28 February 2014‎ Smtchahal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,825 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Involvement in Illegal Hunting of Wildlife: change.org petitions can be signed by literally anyone; using one of these I could add defamatory content about anyone. Something like a newspaper or magazine publication makes for a better WP:RS)" . they are using it as a propaganda against the said person. they contantly delete any information added by any other person citing valid references.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Regarding change.org then it was reconciled long back as I did not know about it , but I would say that many users are adding unsourced and partisan source information in that article. The above user had tried many times to remove the claimant position and is taking the side of one of the disputants namely Mufaddal. The succession controversy characterizes Mufaddal hence partisan sources from his own site regarding controversy are not reliable.Summichum (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I don't think this should be closed just yet. There are floods of users adding unsourced or poorly sourced information regarding the succession controversy, or removing sourced content in this article. I've frankly given up, as I can't stop them all and stay within 3RR. Here's one removing that he is a claimant, addition of poorly referenced claims to support a political position. This article needs, at least, semi-protection, and should be rewritten entirely by a competent editor capable of using grammatical English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• I Agree. The article is constantly being used as propaganda. This Article should be written maintaining Wikipedia standards.Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Names in Templates

I came across a situation today that has me wondering. There is a template, {{Kurdish–Turkish conflict}} and maybe others, that list names of supposedly living people as insurgents. Names are redlinked, and in the case of Hüseyin Yıldırım (insurgent) is not discussed in any article in the encyclopedia. So we are now calling Hüseyin Yıldırım an insurgent without any sources at all. I take responsibility for changing the template link to include the (insurgent) dab but the name was there and linked prior to that action. Should a template include names of possible living people and call them insurgents without any references to verify this? GB fan 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of any reference to any living persons in any space falls under WP:BLP and I suspect that a redlinked claim is not going to have a strong reliable source backing it. I would tend to think that labeling a person an "insurgent" is intrinsically a "contentious claim." Collect (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed all the redlinks from the insurgent section of the template. GB fan 14:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Kathy Castor

[(Kathy Castor)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Castor

Information under U.S. House of Representatives has been removed three times since 02/14/2014 and one of the users who removed this information cited copyright violation. Information originally posted under U.S. House of Representatives is from the biography page of castor.house.gov, and according to the Biographies of Living Persons Wikipedia policy, "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites ... "

These are the usernames that have removed the referenced information: HangingCurve, Bgwhite and Ronhjones.

I would appreciate your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.137 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:BLPSELFPUB might be incomplete; there are a number of conditions for use. In addition, anything added here cannot violate WP:COPYVIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

if you add content from another local that is cool only you must rewrite it to avoid copyright problems - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYVIO - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Jake Maymudes

Any Bob Dylan fans feel like adding to this biography? I've referenced two articles regarding a book he's authoring. I'm too much of a noob to figure out the wiki syntax. -st — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaketown (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Juan Gómez-Quiñones

I am the eldest child of Professor Juan Gomez-Quinones and I am writing to you on his behalf concerning the DEFAMATORY & LIBELOUS CLAIMS being made under his biographical entry.

Under the section entitled "Criticism" under the entry Juan Gómez-Quiñones there is an UNTRUE and PATENTLY FALSE statement made regarding an UNCITED L.A. TIMES article which attempts to SLANDER my still living father's reputation with a contrived story involving former UC Regent Ochoa. This alleged incident is based purely on malicious gossip meant to SLANDER my father's personal and professional reputation.

I request that all WIKIPEDIA references to this alleged incident be EXORCISED IMMEDIATELY and that any future attempts to post such libelous stories on the WIKIPEDIA site be denied.

Failure to do so will result in legal action being taken against WIKIPEDIA on behalf of Professor Gomez-Quinones.

I also request from WIKIPEDIA any and all information regarding the POSTER of this information, as I intend to defend my father's reputation vigorously via legal channels.

Please contact me immediately should it be necessary to do so.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Tamara Gomez-Quinones tgq4u@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.171.173 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the cricism section from Juan Gómez-Quiñones as it was based on a site called Uclaprof.com which is run by Bruin Alumni Association and is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standard. Thank you for adressing the issue. Please don't make legal threats on Wikipedia though; legal issues must be dealt with off-line. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the proper thing to do, but primarily because of the sourcing issue. The event actually did happen and is documented in RS. Tamara, legal threats can quickly get you blocked from Wikipedia and they also upset editors here. The Streisand effect can be pretty powerful! Wikipedia will not be threatened into silence or self-censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

She is not a regular editor here, so we can't expect her to know about the ban against legal threats. As long as it is not repeated, it isn't a problem. People have the right to become upset if they see what they believe are wrong or misleading information about people they know or even are related to. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Tracy Morgan

Tracy Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone is inserting their names and changing information on Tracy Morgan's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmischke (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave a warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert D. Scinto

Robert D. Scinto started out as technically an autobio, although I assume its just a person acting on behalf of subject. It could benefit from being shortened in regards to details, have some of the overtly positive appraisal worded more neutrally, and especially having his prison sentence in a corruption case neutrally mentioned. Sources are there, but as it stands now you almost get the impression that he was unfairly treated. In all fairness it should be said that, judging from the sources, subject has done nice things for his community. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Christian Parenti

• Christian Parenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few eyes on this in case I miss more activity - an IP insists on adding unreferenced controversial/potentially defamatory material. Reported through OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

This page has been subject to campaign vandalism by certain group of editors on Wikipedia who may be acting for Senator Cornyns multimillion dollar negative advertisement campaign. They have removed Congressman Policy Positions and replaced it with misstatements and malicious libel. These editors Tillman54, Famspear, Fredkin and others have managed to engaged in bias on this site. They have also successfully managed to have Stockman page locked to outside and so they control the editing and have any editor who corrects their campaign vandalism be called a sock puppet and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.168.218 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Murry Salby

It's on AfD for a few more days but looks like a lot of !votes will keep the article. They noted (adn I agree) that the tone is exclusively negative and not about what he would be notable for. Per ATTACK page policy of someone that is otherwise notable but unbalanced, I stubbed it. Please let someone else take a look so I don't edit war over it. Thx. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor reverted to the attack page and Bbb23 locked the page as in almost completely negative tone about material the subject is not notable for. Please take a look. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

His firing should not be in the lead, at least in its current form.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_McNair

The article says he sucked off 28 guards, which is probably inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.149.129 (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Sky

Talk:Emma Sky

A lot of material has recently been added to this article's talk page, including at least one long quote from an unreliable source and some unsourced comments that seem to attempt to link her to various scandals. I'm unsure exactly which parts of it need to be removed from the page (and particularly whether links should be removed), so it would be good if someone more sure of what they are doing could take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKiwiDeerPin (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ezekiel_H._Guti

This page just reads like an advertisement at the moment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.45.182 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Roach

Michael Roach

This article is virtually a stub article, with very thin detail about why Michael Roach is notable, on top of which a huge controversy section has been added, which seems to be aimed at publicizing the POV of some people who disagree with Michael Roach (full disclosure: I used to study with Michael Roach in Arizona). It would be nice if someone who doesn't have an axe to grind could look at the article and consider whether it is really encyclopedic and gives due weight to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)